A sad part of my thanksgiving break was having to discuss where we were going to spread my grandpa’s ashes in December. We decided that we should spread them in the cove of Angel Island, one of his favorite sailing spots. Thinking a lot about my grandpa over break made me wonder how much a love for nature is passed down and how much is discovered by the individual and dependant on the individual. I think one of the reasons that I love being outside so much is because my grandpa used to take me sailing or camping every other weekend growing up. I learned to really appreciate being outside from him. On the other hand, I have not sailed in three years, and actually do not enjoy sailing very much. Instead I have found enjoyment in other things that he was not passionate about such as hiking and rock climbing.

What do you guys think is the greatest influence in fostering a love for the outdoors?

I was wondering about the environmental impact of investing in an artificial christmas tree versus cutting one down every year. This New York Times article says that buying the real thing still has less of an environmental impact. The carbon footprint of a fake tree is much larger than all the trees you cut down over 10 years would ever have.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/18/business/energy-environment/18tree.html?_r=0

Repeat After me… “KOYAANISQATSI”

Koyaanisqatsi (1983). Directed by Godfrey Reggio; music by Philip Glass, cinematography by Ron Fricke. The title, which also serves as theme and plot, comes from the Hopi language and translates roughly as “life out of balance,” “crazy life,” or “life disintegrating.” Void of dialog or characters (other than the human race as a whole), Koyaanisqatsi is pure image and music. Reggio provides vast and stunning scenes of the natural world, equally beautiful human creations of the city and industry, as well as the relentless pace (and cost) of modern life. Striking in its association of unlike objects and scenes, and propelled by Glass’ hypnotic score, Koyaanisqatsi asserts a specific claim and argues powerfully from a particular ideological position.

Where is this film effective in conveying its “emotional” message? How does the film manipulate (though chosen in camera, sound or editing) its audience? How, for instance, is nature portrayed? How is culture portrayed? What does the mise-en-scene suggest? How are individual people represented in Koyaanisqatsi? Where is the camera located? Where is the speed of the film varied and why? What would you say is the tone of the film and how is it established? Look for things like time, perspective, movement, repetition, and sound. How does the music function in the film? Does the music provide support or actually drive the narrative? How?

Koyaanisqatsi as a good example of “associational form,” and editing technique that juxtaposes seemingly unlike things to prove a point. If you believe this film lacks typical narrative organization and subsequently relies upon its audience noticing recurring elements, what are some of those elements? Where do motifs repeat? Where does the grouping of images and/or sound express concepts or even argumentative points?

What are the politics of this film? Is Koyaanisqatsi propaganda? If so, what kind and what makes it so?

In response to our viewing of Koyaanisqatsi, please offer a two part/paragraph blog post:

Part One: Provide your gut reaction. Say how the film made you feel. Were you moved? Irritated? Disgusted? Go ahead and vent if you want. Would you recommend this film? Why?

Part Two: Delineate the argument, thesis, or point of the film. Be as objective and as different from your personal tone in Part One as you can. How is the argument advanced? Detail some formal choices you noticed and analyze the manipulation of the viewer. How, exactly, is the argument made? Think of your task as explaining what goes on behind the magic curtain to those in the audience who see only the show and are unaware of the manipulation. What is nature, or the state of nature, according to Koyaanisqatsi, and how is this portrait achieved cinematically?

And maybe this: Can art help us save the world?

For reference, here are translations of the Hopi Prophecies sung in the film:

“If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster.”
“Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.”
“A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans.”

“Environmentalists so often seem self-righteous, privileged, and arrogant because they so readily consent to identifying nature with play and making it by definition a place where leisured humans come only to visit and not to work, stay, or live. Thus environmentalists have much to say about nature and play and little to say about humans and work. And if the world were actually so cleanly divided between the domains of work and play, humans and nature, there would be no problem. Then environmentalists could patrol the borders and keep the categories clear. But the dualisms fail to hold; the boundaries are not so clear. And so environmentalists can seem an ecological Immigration and Naturalization Service, border agents in a social dubious, morally ambiguous, and ultimately hopeless cause” (White 173). 

I think this is an incredibly oversimplified view of environmentalism. I couldn’t quite find when this essay was published, but I think someone would have to be fairly ignorant to say that about the environmental movement recently. The sustainable farming movement, specifically, has taken off drastically and it is becoming more mainstream for environmentalists to work on organic farms. Programs like WWOOF have made that even more of a reality for people. Furthermore, fields such as geology, conservation biology, and other science fields generally go hand in hand with environmentalism and involve, quite directly, working in nature. Additionally, conservation hunting is a thing, despite its’ lack of mainstream appeal. Although outdoor recreation and leisure is still a large part of environmentalism, the preservation v. conservation divide is not nearly as intense now as it has been in the past.

“Fast forward to the textbook, which airs plenty of against-the-grain opinions, like the contention that nature is more resilient than most environmentalists realize (Kareiva won’t even utter the adjective fragile when discussing ecosystems) or the unsentimental assertion that the days of pristine wilderness are long gone. Mankind’s fingerprints can be found everywhere on the planet. Get over it, Kareiva would say. And start focusing on preserving what’s left of the good (if no longer great) outdoors” (Dunkel 35).

This passage captures the heart of what is so special about how Kareiva approaches conservation. Its much more realistic, less emotional, and, I think, can do more good than many other approaches. It has been proven that the doom and gloom messages of past environmentalism simply don’t motivate most people. Messages that are more realistic and clearly outline that there is an important role for humans that can result in a positive change are the productive messages that should be more prevalent in environmentalism and conservation alike.

“We seek the purity of our absence, but everywhere we find our own fingerprints. It is ultimately our own bodies and our labor that blur the boundaries between the artificial and the natural. Even now we can tamper with the genetic stuff of our own and other creatures’ bodies, altering the design of species. We cannot come to terms with nature without coming to terms with our own work, our own bodies, our own bodily labor.” (173)

“What most deeply engaged these first white men with nature, what they wrote about most vividly, was work: backbreaking, enervating, heavy work. The Labor of the body revealed that nature was cold, muddy, sharp, tenacious, slippery. Many more of their adjectives also described immediate, tangible contact between the body and the nonhuman world.” (177)

“It is precisely this recognition of how work provides a knowledge of, and a connection to, nature that separates a minority of environmentalists, particularly  those sympathetic to Wendell Berry, from the dominant environmentalist denigration of work.” (178)

I though Kareivas idea of the necessity of humans in nature conservancy is an interesting idea and not one that is mentioned. Often it seems like the conservationists and preservationists point most of the blame at humans. Instead the author argues that by balancing the basic human needs of water, food, livlihoods, security and health. But for The Nature Conservany, this is the endgame, but argues that there will be room for wilderness after this is met.

To me, it seemed like the article made a lot of heavy assumptions that might not be true or possible without serious changes to our behavior. They offered some small scale examples of successful ecological conservation efforts but seem to only get more difficult if the population continues to increase.

Concentrate on protecting those essential things that the natural world provides us-like clean water-and we’ll wind up better stewards of nature in the long run. Make nature relevant to everyday lives and you can produce billions of grass-roots conservationists, each with a vested interest in seeing a workable balance struck between human beings and the environment. (37)

What we must have is a vision of the future in which the needs of people and nature are balanced, based on the hard facts of growing population, huge climate impacts, and expanding agriculture and energy exploration. The conservation of the future will be less and less about protected areas and increasingly about working landscapes, in which the most intrusive human activities are planned for and managed to generate the least damage and to avoid irreplaceable natural systems that cannot tolerate heavy impacts. The key is to take each of the major needs of people, water, food, livelihoods, security and health-and find the future that meets these needs and protects nature. (38)

On my way back to school yesterday, I was thrilled to see people with banners on the overpasses in Massachusetts on I90 calling for talk about climate change! The first one said “Talk About” with waves painted under it, and the second said “Climate Change” and I believe it had trees around it. There were a few cyclists at each spot smiling and standing by the banners. I was excited to see this so close to home and on a route that sees a TON of traffic from people coming or coming from New England for the holiday.

I also saw that in Paris, climate activists were going to have a march calling for strong climate action but were asked not to march because it was deemed unsafe by city officials. So instead of physically marching, they symbolically laid out a pair of shoes for each person who was supposed to participate in order to demonstrate the magnitude of the interested persons.

I look forward to seeing more of this and what will come at the closing of COP21.

I recently listened to a podcast (RadioLab) that discussed the mystery of one of our human ancestors. A skull found in South Africa in the 1920s has a remarkable resemblance to humans, in that it has a relatively flat face and a hole at the base of the skull, suggesting it stood upright. The skull was very small and the reason we know it was not human is the brain cavity is too small. What I found to be fascinating about this piece is that it narrated the journey of finding what killed this specific creature. Ultimately, scientists recognized that it was most like a large bird of prey that killed the specimen (which was about the size of a chimpanzee). I find it to be so interesting how we view humans as being at the top of the food chain, the scariest predators out there, but not so long ago, our ancestors were hunted by birds. It’s a concept I never considered, sure it would make sense to be scared of a lion or bear should I stumble across it in the wild, but a large bird? It puts a whole new feeling to the eeriness that accompanies the a swooping shadow from above.